In the vast realm of literary critique, opinions often diverge, and today, I find myself inclined to lend a sympathetic ear to the sentiment that Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Ozymandias" is, in essence, saccharine, purple, and pretentious to the core.
Firstly, the poem's saccharine quality cannot be ignored. The language employed in "Ozymandias" can be accused of being excessively sweet, perhaps an attempt to coat a somber tale in a veneer of poetic charm. This sweetness may, for some readers, distract from the raw and impactful nature of the message Shelley seeks to convey.
Furthermore, the poem's purple prose, characterized by ornate and excessively elaborate language, is a point of contention. While some may argue that it adds to the grandeur and majesty befitting the theme of a fallen empire, others may find it teetering on the edge of melodrama. The grandiosity of Shelley's words might be seen as an attempt to elevate the poem to a higher plane, but it could also be viewed as an unnecessary embellishment that obscures the simplicity of the underlying narrative.
The accusation of pretentiousness, though a strong one, is not without merit. The poem's overarching tone of grandiosity and the use of lofty language might strike some readers as an attempt to impress with intellectual prowess rather than earnestly convey a message. The risk of alienating those who prefer a more straightforward approach to storytelling is evident, and it begs the question of whether the poem's complexity is an asset or a hindrance.
In conclusion, while "Ozymandias" has rightfully earned its place as a classic work of literature, it is essential to recognize that literary tastes are subjective. The poem's saccharine, purple, and pretentious elements may not resonate with every reader, and acknowledging these aspects does not diminish its historical significance or the profound impact it has had on the world of poetry. After all, in the vast tapestry of literary critique, diversity of opinion is what keeps the discourse vibrant and engaging.
Im weiten Bereich der Literaturkritik gehen die Meinungen oft auseinander, und heute neige ich dazu, dem Gefühl, dass Percy Bysshe Shelleys "Ozymandias" im Wesentlichen saccharin, lila und prätentiös im Kern ist, ein sympathisches Ohr zu geben.
Erstens kann die saccharine Qualität des Gedichts nicht ignoriert werden. Die Sprache, die in "Ozymandias" verwendet wird, kann beschuldigt werden, übermäßig süß zu sein, vielleicht ein Versuch, eine düstere Geschichte mit einem Furnier von poetischem Charme zu überziehen. Diese Süße kann für einige Leser von der rohen und wirkungsvollen Natur der Botschaft ablenken, die Shelley vermitteln möchte.
Darüber hinaus ist die lila Prosa des Gedichts, die sich durch eine kunstvolle und übermäßig aufwendige Sprache auszeichnet, ein Streitpunkt. Während einige argumentieren mögen, dass es zu der Größe und Majestät beiträgt, die dem Thema eines gefallenen Imperiums entsprechen, können andere es am Rande des Melodrams finden. Die Großartigkeit von Shelleys Worten könnte als Versuch angesehen werden, das Gedicht auf eine höhere Ebene zu heben, aber es könnte auch als unnötige Verschönerung angesehen werden, die die Einfachheit der zugrunde liegenden Erzählung verschleiert.
Der Vorwurf der Anmaßung, obwohl er stark ist, ist nicht ohne Verdienst. Der übergreifende Ton der Großartigkeit des Gedichts und die Verwendung einer hohen Sprache könnten einige Leser als Versuch treffen, mit intellektuellem Können zu beeindrucken, anstatt ernsthaft eine Botschaft zu vermitteln. Das Risiko, diejenigen zu entfremden, die einen direkteren Ansatz zum Geschichtenerzählen bevorzugen, ist offensichtlich, und es wirft die Frage auf, ob die Komplexität des Gedichts ein Gewinn oder ein Hindernis ist.
Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass "Ozymandias" zwar zu Recht seinen Platz als klassisches Werk der Literatur verdient hat, aber es ist wichtig zu erkennen, dass der literarische Geschmack subjektiv ist. Die saccharinischen, violetten und prätentiösen Elemente des Gedichts mögen nicht bei jedem Leser Anklang finden, und die Anerkennung dieser Aspekte schmälert nicht seine historische Bedeutung oder den tiefgreifenden Einfluss, den es auf die Welt der Poesie hatte. Schließlich ist in dem riesigen Teppich der Literaturkritik die Vielfalt der Meinungen das, was den Diskurs lebendig und fesselnd hält.
Personally, I believe the Review is Satire. Is it not for instance saccharine in its chumminess, purple, and only not pretentious because it is what it is? Its purport's obvious, so I won't bother revealing it. Also, is the German a translation or the English? Good translation either way.
>Firstly, the poem's saccharine quality cannot be ignored. The language employed in "Ozymandias" can be accused of being excessively sweet, perhaps an attempt to coat a somber tale in a veneer of poetic charm. >gives zero (0) examples
You people are NPCs
NPCs! NPCs!
He gives zero examples because there are no examples to be had. Compared to Keats, Ode to Autumn, for instance (a wonderful poem regardless) Shelley's almost a minimalist..
The OP's a literal joke; probably set up by the Review writer.
I think it's bigotry of low expectations. If a human made a sophistic argument that cites no examples, they'd be looked at spuriously. But if an AI or a Negro does it, they get credit for stringing the sentences together.
Love seeing the "NPC" designation dovetail with the rise of actual NPCs, very cute.
>saccharine, purple, and pretentious to the core
That's the entire Romantic movement.
Yeah this is one of my major LULZ pet peeves, people criticizing a particular work when they are not equipped to separate the qualities of the work from those of its genre/historical context.
https://i.imgur.com/nhQYPb9.jpg
Let's face it - this poem is saccharine, purple, and pretentious to the core
It certainly uses some "dramatic lighting", so to speak, although it's incredibly well done and the artifice is in what it omits, not what it shows. So "pretentious", sure, in the way that Shakespeare is "pretentious" by emphasizing the dramatic aspects of the story of Caesar; I think "saccharine" and "purple" are being used in a wildly inexact manner though. I'll assume that your scattershot overuse of adjectives in a criticism about pretension and purpleness is an intentional joke.
Based oldfag. Enjoyed this. Inclusion of the text in bits rather emphasizes its spare nature. That a precise word or two like 'visage' or 'trunkless' could elicit the cry of Purple! is I guess not so surprising in 2023.
Is it retard day on LULZ? I'm seeing even dumber opinions than usual in multiple threads.
>retard day
All imageboard websites are like this now
In the vast realm of literary critique, opinions often diverge, and today, I find myself inclined to lend a sympathetic ear to the sentiment that Percy Bysshe Shelley's "Ozymandias" is, in essence, saccharine, purple, and pretentious to the core.
Firstly, the poem's saccharine quality cannot be ignored. The language employed in "Ozymandias" can be accused of being excessively sweet, perhaps an attempt to coat a somber tale in a veneer of poetic charm. This sweetness may, for some readers, distract from the raw and impactful nature of the message Shelley seeks to convey.
Furthermore, the poem's purple prose, characterized by ornate and excessively elaborate language, is a point of contention. While some may argue that it adds to the grandeur and majesty befitting the theme of a fallen empire, others may find it teetering on the edge of melodrama. The grandiosity of Shelley's words might be seen as an attempt to elevate the poem to a higher plane, but it could also be viewed as an unnecessary embellishment that obscures the simplicity of the underlying narrative.
The accusation of pretentiousness, though a strong one, is not without merit. The poem's overarching tone of grandiosity and the use of lofty language might strike some readers as an attempt to impress with intellectual prowess rather than earnestly convey a message. The risk of alienating those who prefer a more straightforward approach to storytelling is evident, and it begs the question of whether the poem's complexity is an asset or a hindrance.
In conclusion, while "Ozymandias" has rightfully earned its place as a classic work of literature, it is essential to recognize that literary tastes are subjective. The poem's saccharine, purple, and pretentious elements may not resonate with every reader, and acknowledging these aspects does not diminish its historical significance or the profound impact it has had on the world of poetry. After all, in the vast tapestry of literary critique, diversity of opinion is what keeps the discourse vibrant and engaging.
Im weiten Bereich der Literaturkritik gehen die Meinungen oft auseinander, und heute neige ich dazu, dem Gefühl, dass Percy Bysshe Shelleys "Ozymandias" im Wesentlichen saccharin, lila und prätentiös im Kern ist, ein sympathisches Ohr zu geben.
Erstens kann die saccharine Qualität des Gedichts nicht ignoriert werden. Die Sprache, die in "Ozymandias" verwendet wird, kann beschuldigt werden, übermäßig süß zu sein, vielleicht ein Versuch, eine düstere Geschichte mit einem Furnier von poetischem Charme zu überziehen. Diese Süße kann für einige Leser von der rohen und wirkungsvollen Natur der Botschaft ablenken, die Shelley vermitteln möchte.
Darüber hinaus ist die lila Prosa des Gedichts, die sich durch eine kunstvolle und übermäßig aufwendige Sprache auszeichnet, ein Streitpunkt. Während einige argumentieren mögen, dass es zu der Größe und Majestät beiträgt, die dem Thema eines gefallenen Imperiums entsprechen, können andere es am Rande des Melodrams finden. Die Großartigkeit von Shelleys Worten könnte als Versuch angesehen werden, das Gedicht auf eine höhere Ebene zu heben, aber es könnte auch als unnötige Verschönerung angesehen werden, die die Einfachheit der zugrunde liegenden Erzählung verschleiert.
Der Vorwurf der Anmaßung, obwohl er stark ist, ist nicht ohne Verdienst. Der übergreifende Ton der Großartigkeit des Gedichts und die Verwendung einer hohen Sprache könnten einige Leser als Versuch treffen, mit intellektuellem Können zu beeindrucken, anstatt ernsthaft eine Botschaft zu vermitteln. Das Risiko, diejenigen zu entfremden, die einen direkteren Ansatz zum Geschichtenerzählen bevorzugen, ist offensichtlich, und es wirft die Frage auf, ob die Komplexität des Gedichts ein Gewinn oder ein Hindernis ist.
Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass "Ozymandias" zwar zu Recht seinen Platz als klassisches Werk der Literatur verdient hat, aber es ist wichtig zu erkennen, dass der literarische Geschmack subjektiv ist. Die saccharinischen, violetten und prätentiösen Elemente des Gedichts mögen nicht bei jedem Leser Anklang finden, und die Anerkennung dieser Aspekte schmälert nicht seine historische Bedeutung oder den tiefgreifenden Einfluss, den es auf die Welt der Poesie hatte. Schließlich ist in dem riesigen Teppich der Literaturkritik die Vielfalt der Meinungen das, was den Diskurs lebendig und fesselnd hält.
bros...this is better than any critique I ever produced on LULZ...
you must be stupid. that post is vapid and meaningless
Not even good, it says nothing substantitive about the poem. It just repeats the same idea over and over
That review is shit. Also, starting with "firstly" and not continuing with "secondly" etc is bad form.
Personally, I believe the Review is Satire. Is it not for instance saccharine in its chumminess, purple, and only not pretentious because it is what it is? Its purport's obvious, so I won't bother revealing it. Also, is the German a translation or the English? Good translation either way.
>Firstly, the poem's saccharine quality cannot be ignored. The language employed in "Ozymandias" can be accused of being excessively sweet, perhaps an attempt to coat a somber tale in a veneer of poetic charm.
>gives zero (0) examples
You people are NPCs
NPCs! NPCs!
He gives zero examples because there are no examples to be had. Compared to Keats, Ode to Autumn, for instance (a wonderful poem regardless) Shelley's almost a minimalist..
The OP's a literal joke; probably set up by the Review writer.
I think it's bigotry of low expectations. If a human made a sophistic argument that cites no examples, they'd be looked at spuriously. But if an AI or a Negro does it, they get credit for stringing the sentences together.
The piece does have an AI feel.
Because it was obviously written by ChatGPT for anyone who is not ESL, and a thirdworlder
Though aware of this and like 'technologies' they just don't interest me, or haven't. Guess I best bone up
Love seeing the "NPC" designation dovetail with the rise of actual NPCs, very cute.
Yeah this is one of my major LULZ pet peeves, people criticizing a particular work when they are not equipped to separate the qualities of the work from those of its genre/historical context.
It certainly uses some "dramatic lighting", so to speak, although it's incredibly well done and the artifice is in what it omits, not what it shows. So "pretentious", sure, in the way that Shakespeare is "pretentious" by emphasizing the dramatic aspects of the story of Caesar; I think "saccharine" and "purple" are being used in a wildly inexact manner though. I'll assume that your scattershot overuse of adjectives in a criticism about pretension and purpleness is an intentional joke.
This is literally the ONLY poem I like. Your opinions are meme shit.
Thanks for proving qualia is instrumental to art!!!!! but the zoomers don't have it either hahaaaa
>saccharine
>pretentious
Based oldfag. Enjoyed this. Inclusion of the text in bits rather emphasizes its spare nature. That a precise word or two like 'visage' or 'trunkless' could elicit the cry of Purple! is I guess not so surprising in 2023.
I like it.
>saccharine, purple, and pretentious to the core
That's the entire Romantic movement.
Toxic irony does posion my perspective of some older literature, but I think this holds up and that your descriptors are off base
>retard calls old literature 'purple prose'
So tired of this.
I agree. I love Russian translation by Balmont, tho. Have it memorized and all.
purple? It never gives more detail than is necessary
he's just some shitposting retard farming for you's
its the epitome of good poetry, get some taste anon
>Bysshe
Blythe
it doesn't resonate much with me
but been exploring Shelley recently
love this 'song of spirits' from Prometeus unbound
ULTIMATE ENGLISH ROMANTIC POET TIER LIST
S-tier
The unsurpassable Keats and Blake (incidentally, both non-Oxbridge and both London-based)
A-tier
The Oxonian: Shelley
B-tier
The C*mbridge grads: Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Byron
>"sonnet"
>not in iambic pentameter
Dropped